America's Cup Disaster

You miss the point. The only things that ever limited design or nationality were not legally binding "Interpretive Resolutions" by the Trustee.

AFAIK none of the IR's were ever tested in court. Had they been it is my opinion that most, if not all would not stand. They had the effect of a trustee altering the the trust they serve, nationality rules as a for instance place limits on a challenger that are not contained in the controlling document.

The Deed says "Constructed" ... the IR said "Constructed means 'Designed and Built'" With no ruling from the court to confirm this interpretation is has no legal weight.

The 12M class rule did not make AII illegal, NYYC under mutual consent agreed to race 12M boats.

The Deed places no nationality limits on design, thus the Aussies did not "cheat" at all.

The entire argument over the keel is moot. The "rule" that made it illegal had no support other than the opinion of the Trustee that just happened to be the Defender.

R

 

nah
I just like to stay on top of the latest news
Looking up various articles concerning this has been a lot easier than you might think as there are tons of articles recently written.

Any anger directed at a messenger is far from properly directed and my real friends from Oz haven't said word one in protest. I believe the psycho stalker of whom you may be referring was deranged from the word go, so Im not really to concerned about that particular nutter.

Not being one of those fanatics who instantly has all the players and stats in his head I am simply expressing a passing interest in the strong possibility of impropriety in recent cup history.

seems even ABC sports has published several articles recently concerning this issue

whatever
to each his own
cheers
B

 

Actually, it has plenty of weight and it remains so until a court rules otherwise based on a legal objection. Courts don't get involved with written agreements until someone brings same to their attention.

It seems that you are saying that rules and agreements don't matter one bit until a court says they matter. What you are suggesting would have the courts running all over the place forcing a review of any agreement between two parties in order to validate the agreement. Thankfully, it doesn't work that way.

 

Good. That makes it easier to get the whole truth out there.


Of course others might argue that the rule was in place, and the people involved agreed to participate under that rule. No one asked for any legal challenge to it as far as I know.

(Looks like one of these "others" answered before I posted)

 

Constructed means 'designed and built', you are pulling a long.... errrr... bow there.

 

To claim that interpretations of documents and rules have no legal weight unless and until they're confirmed in court is not just cynical; it's completely bass-ackards. In reality, a governing body's decisions in such matters are generally given great weight, and presumed to be valid and in force--unless and until a court says otherwise.

The fact of the matter is that the Deed does need to be interpreted and expanded, hopefully keeping the likely intent of the original writers in mind. The word 'construct' is a good example; what did they mean by it? Does it mean just the hull? Do the masts and the lines used in the rigging have to be manufactured in the challenger's country? Can the sailcloth be woven elsewhere, or can the sails be sewn in a different country? What if major portions of the boat are prefabricated elsewhere, shipped to the challenger's country, and the boat assembled and finished there? What if it's built by a construction crew hired and shipped in from another country? And yes: does construction include the design?

Whether the Aussies cheated or not, I don't know. And I don't really care much one way or the other, to tell the truth. But to claim they couldn't have cheated, because no court decision had upheld each and every rule they were supposed to be following, is an appallingly cynical and completely specious argument.

 

I disagree with you. I think he's looking at the argument in almost an abstract way, like solving a crossword puzzle or finding Waldo. I seriously doubt he has anything against Aussies and deliberately wants to antagonize them, although that may be the result.

 

As a part time student of New York Trust law and Charitable Remainder Trusts in particular, I think you don't grasp what I said.

Even if the challengers (beneficiaries) signed an agreement to abide by the IR's, that entire agreement is in violation of trust law if it alters the terms of the trust.

The court assumes that the settlor of a trust has made the intent clear in the document itself. In the case of defining "Constructed" to mean "Designed and Built" the trustee has altered the qualifications do become a beneficiary. The Trustee does not have that power.

Compare all the IR's added to the Deed by trustees with how Royal Perth handled the "Arm of the sea" interpretation. They did not presume that they could define it as they wished, they asked the Court for a ruling. That became an Interpretive Decision and thus carries legal weight.

IMO had NYYC gone to the court with their "Designed and Built" interpretation, the court would have read the Deed literally and quoted the common usage:

"1 : to make or form by combining or arranging parts or elements"

The same goes for nationality IR's, in the trust only the national origin of the vessel (where it was Constructed) is included. Again, the addition of this IR denies benefits under the trust to Clubs that would otherwise qualify.

There is a legal process that a trustee can avail themselves of to resolve ambiguity or questions of interpretation.

If these IR's had the weight of law behind them, no new trustee could ignore them much less remove them from a legally binding document. Yet this is just what SNG did as trustee, they removed the IR's completely.

If you look at the IR's and study Cup events around the dates of those IR's you will see a pattern.

For those with insomnia here is a link to the current Deed as amended in 1956 and 1985 and the ID on Arm of the Sea and all the IR's.

Link

 

He started out some place else... and could not manage to say "I was wr........g" when called out so he raked around for some another front to stir on. Thing is it didn't really stick that well (read the thread) but yet, as Chris notes, he persists chucking stuff at the wall. Its kinda sad really.

 

Do you understand the nature of the Deed? The TRUSTEE is NOT the governing body. The court of New York is. The IR's I mention are not the interpretations of the governing body. But of the Trustee. They are most definitely subject to challenge by the beneficiaries of the trust. All that is required is a request to the New York Office of the Attorney General. It is that office's job to protect the rights of beneficiaries of Public Trusts.

If you take the time to read and try to understand the Deed of Gift I defy you to find any intent in the document to place nationality requirements on designers or crew.

I agree that the trust needs to be interpreted from time to time. The legal way to do that is to petition the court for an Interpretive Decision, not to just write a resolution.

I not so humbly suggest you make an effort to understand how trust law in New York works before you respond.

Randy

 

Are you claiming the trustees have no power to make decisions? That for each and every ruling they have to petition the Court for an Interpretive Decision? Is that really the way the Deed has worked for generations?

You're right; I'm no expert on New York's trust law. But I don't have to be, to suspect that you're stretching it rather thin. The fact that the interpretations may be subject to challenge by beneficiaries doesn't invalidate them wholesale. Otherwise, there would be no point in having trustees.

This debate seems to have changed course: from people arguing about whether the Aussies broke the rules or not, to people claiming in essence that there are and were no rules to break. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't buy it. Common sense would say that since neither side challenged the rules and the Court didn't rule them invalid, they were in force.

 

I will make it simple for you...

yarrp we broke all the rules...

yarrp we unbolted the auld mug and bought it south.

nup we wouldn't change a thing!

snigger, you let us get away with it!

we robbed ya and we are proud of it!

Is that fitting enough for a convict nation?

Seems quite clear to me! The rule thing that is... but I am starting to understand why your legal system is over loaded with work.

 

Now who's trolling?

 

LOL... its not trolling when its about your side of the argument!

 

I'm not saying that at all. The trustee has to make decisions within the letter of the trust they serve. If they have a question, they have a proper procedure to follow. IR's are only a statement "This what we think the trust means."

Yes I am stretching it a bit thin. We just watched over two years of litigation doing just that. It took 9 months just to decide what "having" means. Think how long it would take to decide if "Constructed" includes design!

The question becomes, did the AII Design team think they were breaking a rule? How would we ever know that? NYYC is not known to be shy, yet they did not press the matter. They tried to bait other teams to protest the keel and failed. If they had succeed the PC would have to rule based on the assumption that the IR was a reflection of the Deed's intent. For NYYC to pursue the action they would not be before their own PC, but before the court ... and they probably would have lost.

The legality of the keel is a dead issue. As others have noted, the keel was not what won the Cup. Great sails, great sailors, and a great program won the Cup. Give it a rest.

If the sole intent is to claim that the Cup was never won until someone found a way to out cheat the NYYC ... fine ...

The Aussie's may have had criminal intent. But their actions were no crime. To think that any action should result after 27 years is ludicrous. Any legal action would have failed at the time, the IR was not enforceable ... 27 years has not changed that even a little bit.

R